Is debating pointless?

[Shad]

Whats the other intention?

Typically the audience is the intended target of debates not the advocates of the positions being discussed.

What if i want you to TRY to change my mind? What then?

Then it becomes an argument not a debate and a question of wasted effort.

 

[Jollybear]

Typically the audience is the intended target of debates not the advocates of the positions being discussed.



Then it becomes an argument not a debate and a question of wasted effort.

It dont have to be an argument if i want the other to try to change my mind. It can still remain a debate procedure. Why not?

The audience is not always the intent.

 

[Shad]

It dont have to be an argument if i want the other to try to change my mind. It can still remain a debate procedure. Why not?

You took my point far too literal. My point was the goal is using a tool which is not necessary for the goal. A debate is about views and the audience not the advocates. A debate is not required to change a single person's views. This can be accomplished by a standard argument based discussion. Toss in the fact that most advocates are far beyond the point of changing one's mind if they believe in the view they advocate for.

Argument as in discussion

The audience is not always the intent.

Irrelevant as my point is about the tool, intent and effort not merely intent. This very discussion is evidence of my point. We are not having a debate nor following any debate procedures yet having a discussion about views. As I said it becomes a question about effort. If the goal is to change the mind of the advocate, a debate is more effort than what is required as it covers far more than basic interaction between individuals.

*Edit. People do advocate for positions they do not believe in. The legal system's public defense and devil's advocate for example. So a believing advocate is my focus not merely any advocate.

 

[Jollybear]

You took my point far too literal. My point was the goal is using a tool which is not necessary for the goal. A debate is about views and the audience not the advocates. A debate is not required to change a single person's views. This can be accomplished by a standard argument based discussion. Toss in the fact that most advocates are far beyond the point of changing one's mind if they believe in the view they advocate for.

Argument as in discussion



Irrelevant as my point is about the tool, intent and effort not merely intent. This very discussion is evidence of my point. We are not having a debate nor following any debate procedures yet having a discussion about views. As I said it becomes a question about effort. If the goal is to change the mind of the advocate, a debate is more effort than what is required as it covers far more than basic interaction between individuals.

*Edit. People do advocate for positions they do not believe in. The legal system's public defense and devil's advocate for example. So a believing advocate is my focus not merely any advocate.

Ill be satisfied with that.

 

[Prometheus85]

So, is debating pointless? If yes.....why? If no.....why?

Yes and no.

Yes Because Debating has been inextricably intertwined with Democracy. democratic societies depend upon the free and open exchange of ideas, providing a contrast to totalitarian regimes which may impose a limited set of ideas as absolute truths.

No because, Debates can be abuse by people who want to push their own agenda. Examples include, far right conservatives and young earth creationist.

 

[Shia Islam]

Them accepting your truth, or you accepting their truth? Which side has to get more open?

Many religions believe that there is an afterlife, and there is either a Hellfire or a Paradise there! After believing in this, I was not ready to follow my emotions which could lead me to the Hellfire! So at a certain phase in my life I questioned all my beliefs very openly..as there is no play when it comes to choosing between Paradise and the Hellfire!

BTW, I almost stopped debating others.. However, when I find that someone wants to know my justifications when it comes to my religion, i talk to him\her..I also publish somethings...However now I see that many people who debate are not open to contemplate the truth!

 

[Jumi]

Not necessarily; although, I think the de-bunker could profit if he recognizes his error.

Aye.

I wouldn't think so. I would think one's faith is more dependent on its own merits. But everyone's different.

I would expect some kind of "boy who cried wolf" situation developing after some time. For myself, no one so far has attempted to debunk my ideas, so I don't know.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes and no.

Yes Because Debating has been inextricably intertwined with Democracy. democratic societies depend upon the free and open exchange of ideas, providing a contrast to totalitarian regimes which may impose a limited set of ideas as absolute truths.

No because, Debates can be abuse by people who want to push their own agenda. Examples include, far right conservatives and young earth creationist.

Are young earth creationists abusive merely because they believe in this idea and merely debate it?

It almost sounds like in the first part your promoting democracy, but the second part, totalitarianism.

 

[Jollybear]

Aye.


I would expect some kind of "boy who cried wolf" situation developing after some time. For myself, no one so far has attempted to debunk my ideas, so I don't know.

Whats your ideas?

 

[Vinayaka]

Many religions believe that there is an afterlife, and there is either a Hellfire or a Paradise there! After believing in this, I was not ready to follow my emotions which could lead me to the Hellfire! So at a certain phase in my life I questioned all my beliefs very openly..as there is no play when it comes to choosing between Paradise and the Hellfire!

BTW, I almost stopped debating others.. However, when I find that someone wants to know my justifications when it comes to my religion, i talk to him\her..I also publish somethings...However now I see that many people who debate are not open to contemplate the truth!

So you have the truth, and the other people don't? That's what I figured. This is not debate, my friend. this is preaching. In order to be subjective, you have to consider it from the other side. Maybe it is they who hold the truth, and you who is not open to it.

In debate, both sides speak, both sides listen.

 

[Jumi]

Whats your ideas?

The mystic monotheism seems to stand out so people make comments about either one of those. I'm pretty much a secular science guy beyond that and don't see a contradiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are young earth creationists abusive merely because they believe in this idea and merely debate it?

It almost sounds like in the first part your promoting democracy, but the second part, totalitarianism.

What's "totalitarian" about choosing not to engage someone in debate?

I'm thinking of something like the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. I'm personally on the fence about whether Nye's decision to debate Ham was a good one, but I do recognize that Nye took a lot of criticism for it: many people thought that by giving Ham a platform and an audience, and by debating his claims directly, Nye gave Ham undeserved attention and respectability.

I certainly don't think Bill Nye would have been "totalitarian" if he refused Ken Ham's request for a debate based on concerns like these.

 

[Jollybear]

What's "totalitarian" about choosing not to engage someone in debate?

Thats not what i meant. I meant should young earthers voices be shut down?

I'm thinking of something like the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. I'm personally on the fence about whether Nye's decision to debate Ham was a good one, but I do recognize that Nye took a lot of criticism for it: many people thought that by giving Ham a platform and an audience, and by debating his claims directly, Nye gave Ham undeserved attention and respectability.

Shouldent everyone who puts in alot of work into there view be given respect, nomatter how "crazy" the view is? Kens organization certainly has done its work, i dont think anyone would deny that.

As for nye getting criticized for debating ham, who cares about that level of stupid criticism. I dont respect THAT KIND OF CRITICISM. If people are gonna attack, attack a view, attack the position, not the motives, not the person who holds the "crazy" position. And certainly not the person who chooses to debate against the position. I think such kind of critics are deserving of the HARSHEST level of rebuke back.

I certainly don't think Bill Nye would have been "totalitarian" if he refused Ken Ham's request for a debate based on concerns like these.

I agree. Thats not what i meant though.

 

[Prometheus85]

Are young earth creationists abusive merely because they believe in this idea and merely debate it?

It almost sounds like in the first part your promoting democracy, but the second part, totalitarianism.

On the contrary.

Young earth creationist abuse debates in the following manner.

1. Challenge "evolutionists" to a debate.
2. 1. Goad then by yelling, "Evolutionists won't debate us! They know they'll be trounced by the hammer of our irresistible logic!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thats not what i meant. I meant should young earthers voices be shut down?

"Shut down" by decining to debate them? Sure.

Shouldent everyone who puts in alot of work into there view be given respect, nomatter how "crazy" the view is?

No; respect for a viewpoint is earned by merit of the ideas, not by how effort is put into promoting it.

Kens organization certainly has done its work, i dont think anyone would deny that.

I would.

As for nye getting criticized for debating ham, who cares about that level of stupid criticism. I dont respect THAT KIND OF CRITICISM.

Didn't you just finish saying that all ideas should be respected?

If people are gonna attack, attack a view, attack the position, not the motives, not the person who holds the "crazy" position. And certainly not the person who chooses to debate against the position. I think such kind of critics are deserving of the HARSHEST level of rebuke back.

If you agree that the debate got media attention for Ken Ham that he wouldn't have received otherwise, and that Bill Nye's choices were critical in allowing that to happen, then this raises the question of whether the effects of Nye's decision were positive or negative, no?

I agree. Thats not what i meant though.

What are you talking about, then?

 

[Prometheus85]

Thats not what i meant. I meant should young earthers voices be shut down?



Shouldent everyone who puts in alot of work into there view be given respect, nomatter how "crazy" the view is? Kens organization certainly has done its work, i dont think anyone would deny that.

As for nye getting criticized for debating ham, who cares about that level of stupid criticism. I dont respect THAT KIND OF CRITICISM. If people are gonna attack, attack a view, attack the position, not the motives, not the person who holds the "crazy" position. And certainly not the person who chooses to debate against the position. I think such kind of critics are deserving of the HARSHEST level of rebuke back.



I agree. Thats not what i meant though.

There's a kind of notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My a** A person who's been a professor of dentistry for 40 years doesn't have a debate with some idiot who removes his teeth with string and a door!

That is called balance fallacy. There is no balance between a rational position and a extreme position.

 

[Jollybear]

"Shut down" by decining to debate them? Sure.

If anyone chooses not to debate a young earther. Fine. If they do, thats also fine. The freedom of speach is what im talking about.

No; respect for a viewpoint is earned by merit of the ideas, not by how effort is put into promoting it.

And the only way to show it has no MERIT is to what? Give it a level of platform and refute it.

Didn't you just finish saying that all ideas should be respected?

You misunderstand that too. I did not mean respect rediculers.

If you agree that the debate got media attention for Ken Ham that he wouldn't have received otherwise, and that Bill Nye's choices were critical in allowing that to happen, then this raises the question of whether the effects of Nye's decision were positive or negative, no?

Heres the thing: it makes no difference if ken gets media attention through nye or not. Who cares either way? The people who watch the media and hear the debate, they will make up there own mind.

 

[Jollybear]

On the contrary.

Young earth creationist abuse debates in the following manner.

1. Challenge "evolutionists" to a debate.
2. 1. Goad then by yelling, "Evolutionists won't debate us! They know they'll be trounced by the hammer of our irresistible logic!"

Thats abuse? To challenge someone to a debate is abuse? How?

 

[Jollybear]

There's a kind of notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My a** A person who's been a professor of dentistry for 40 years doesn't have a debate with some idiot who removes his teeth with string and a door!

That is called balance fallacy. There is no balance between a rational position and a extreme position.

Actually, yea, why not debate how to properly pull a tooth? I mean, why not? Seriously?

 

[Prometheus85]

Thats not what i meant. I meant should young earthers voices be shut down?



Shouldent everyone who puts in alot of work into there view be given respect, nomatter how "crazy" the view is? Kens organization certainly has done its work, i dont think anyone would deny that.

As for nye getting criticized for debating ham, who cares about that level of stupid criticism. I dont respect THAT KIND OF CRITICISM. If people are gonna attack, attack a view, attack the position, not the motives, not the person who holds the "crazy" position. And certainly not the person who chooses to debate against the position. I think such kind of critics are deserving of the HARSHEST level of rebuke back.



I agree. Thats not what i meant though.

Ken ham? I deny it lol